The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
Philosophy Corner: Ontology by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 06:40:05
  I've probably said this on the boad before by voxwoman2009-08-19 06:55:28
    OK by MatthewDBA 2009-08-19 06:58:14
Next question: Is there anything outside the universe? If there were, such an entity would automatically be "supernatural" by your definition.
[ Reply ]
      That doesn't parse by Control2009-08-19 07:01:56
        Hmm. by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 07:03:25
          I'd say no by Control2009-08-19 07:11:54
            I'm reasonably sure it is. by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 07:16:40
              how many dimensions are you talking about? by voxwoman2009-08-19 07:33:27
                Yes, a location must use all dimensions. by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 07:35:36
                  However, it is possible that in some dimension(s), by bitflipper2009-08-19 08:27:14
                    I did allow for indeterminate locations. (n/t) by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 08:28:23
                      Ah. I missed that, on first read. Sorry. (n/t) by bitflipper2009-08-19 08:32:10
              Certain entities don't. by tallastro2009-08-19 08:02:21
                An idea requires a brain by Control2009-08-19 08:04:53
                  One could argue over that ... by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 08:07:52
                    Or, perhaps, a Platonic Idealist, like Matt. by bitflipper2009-08-19 08:31:13
                      Me too by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 08:35:38
                One could argue by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 08:06:34
                  Does it require a brain? maybe not. by tallastro2009-08-19 08:37:03
                    But, is it ever thought <i>without</i> a brain? by bitflipper2009-08-19 08:58:00
                      That's an interesting concept by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 09:04:39
                        Oh, *so* tempted... by bitflipper2009-08-19 09:15:08
                          MOO by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 09:16:02
                            :D (n/t) by bitflipper2009-08-19 09:23:45
          Second attempt...now it makes sense by Control2009-08-19 07:19:49
            No, I'm not asking by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 07:25:28
              How does that make any difference? by Control2009-08-19 07:54:07
                Okay, yet another reformulation. by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 08:03:28
                  Superset of Everything? by Control2009-08-19 08:06:34
                    No. by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 08:09:09
                      How do you define f or g in 'purple'? by Control2009-08-19 08:15:28
                        That's the point of using g rather than f. by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 08:22:29
                          Beyond me, sorry by Control2009-08-19 08:37:33
                            "Spatial integration" is probably not a good term by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 08:48:09
                              I tried making sense of that by Control2009-08-19 10:45:27
                                The "existence function" is just a function. by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 10:55:43
                                I still don't see it by Control2009-08-19 11:13:01
                                That's exactly the point. by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 11:19:42
                                I don't see how any such definition is meaningful by Control2009-08-19 11:56:20
                                Not always. by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 12:04:27
                                I'm saying it's not valid by Control2009-08-19 12:08:57
                                I'm not sure what you mean by saying by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 12:15:58
                                That seems completely off by Control2009-08-19 12:22:38
                                I'd disagree. by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 12:27:11
                                I really wouldn't know by Control2009-08-19 12:38:14
                                I wouldn't call by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 12:43:22
                                Wow, that went way over my head by Control2009-08-19 12:54:17
                                No, it wouldn't actually. by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 13:01:08
                                Numbers, perhaps? by bitflipper2009-08-19 13:10:42
                                Hmm. by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 13:13:30
                                Ah. by bitflipper2009-08-19 13:26:16
                                Oh, and by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 13:18:22
                                What, then, is the status, in terms of existing, by bitflipper2009-08-19 12:16:24
                                Thanks; your reply was better than mine :-/ (n/t) by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 12:19:20
                                :shrug: Your answer is clean and well-defined by bitflipper2009-08-19 12:27:07
                                Yes, but I'm generally *trying* by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 12:28:27
                                It doesn't exist yet, no by Control2009-08-19 12:26:30
                                But then how could I build an improved version by bitflipper2009-08-19 12:28:58
                                Actually, he's allowing you to improve on by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 12:30:53
                                One of the joys of Philosophy :grin: (n/t) by bitflipper2009-08-19 12:58:39
                                The idea can change, can't it? by Control2009-08-19 12:39:48
                                color doesn't work the same as odor by voxwoman2009-08-19 11:17:44
                                The chemical compounds in the air by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 11:25:28
                                the color has a color temperature by voxwoman2009-08-19 11:41:40
                                So the perception of the color by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 11:46:47
                                So, a purple cow is not purple in the dark? by bitflipper2009-08-19 12:08:41
                                Actually, according to her interpretation by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 12:25:01
                                Heheheh. Qualia, again. by bitflipper2009-08-19 12:31:32
                                I don't think that's quite right. by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 12:34:56
                                yes. (n/t) by voxwoman2009-08-19 14:38:46
                                Then this brings us back to the argument by bitflipper2009-08-19 14:59:00
                                With a little extra wiring in the brain... by Control2009-08-19 11:59:01
                      AHA! by kelli2172009-08-19 08:59:27
                        Well, that's arguable. by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 09:06:49
                          Which statement leads inexorably to... by bitflipper2009-08-19 09:10:35
                            Good thought. by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 09:15:30
                              Heheh! Your Idealism is showing, again by bitflipper2009-08-19 09:22:12
                                That's *realism* thankyouverymuch :-P by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 09:29:40
                                While qualia may have no physical characteristics by bitflipper2009-08-19 09:58:04
                                Point taken. In which case by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 10:05:09
                                Yes, but we can't talk about the quale by bitflipper2009-08-19 11:22:03
                                your example then can conclude by voxwoman2009-08-19 12:30:36
                                Yes, it does. And, yes, it does. ;-) by bitflipper2009-08-19 12:57:11
                                OK... I wasn't following the math terribly closely by voxwoman2009-08-19 15:20:30
                                Now, what about the chick of the chicken by bitflipper2009-08-19 15:37:13
                                and then we get into the abortion issue... by voxwoman2009-08-19 18:04:39
                                a thing which is purple simply reflects by voxwoman2009-08-19 11:24:29
                                Hmm. by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 11:29:57
          How would we know? by kelli2172009-08-19 07:47:01
            I didn't actually claim by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 07:54:01
      Wouldn't "outside of space and time" by bitflipper2009-08-19 07:02:19
        See my clarification by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 07:04:11
          :grin: Yeah. My objection isn't with the by bitflipper2009-08-19 07:37:56
      I tihink if there's anything outside by voxwoman2009-08-19 07:05:29
      maybe by aprylmae2009-08-19 07:15:10
        Good one. Hadn't thought of that before. by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 07:18:57
          possibly by aprylmae2009-08-19 07:21:50
            But if the separation were removed by MatthewDBA2009-08-19 07:44:26

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)